1. Technical Field
The present invention relates in general to a method and system for controlling a television and in particular to a method and system for controlling the content displayed on a television utilizing a computer system implementing multidimensional control having a user friendly interface. Still more particularly, the present invention relates to a method and system for down loading television ratings and television scheduling from user selected sources, such that a user or an authority figure can automatically control a minor's media environment. More particularly, the present invention can provide a method and system for controlling a minor's media environment utilizing the minor's accumulation of desirable and undesirable viewing time.
2. Description of the Related Art
It is believed by many Americans that television programs are influential in the lives of our nation's children. More particularly, parents are concerned with the negative influence television has on their children's social and physiological development. As a result, special interest groups continue to lobby for greater government regulation of broadcast content. Legislative solutions to television censorship have been attempted; however, first amendment rights continue to block such efforts.
Currently, millions of American families are single parent or dual income. Often, this phenomena places a child alone in a home with the unrestricted availability of a television. In this circumstance a child's television choice cannot be directly supervised. Commercially available systems are expensive, convoluted and time intensive to implement. Working parents do not have the excess time which is required to effectively and satisfactory operate existing censorship systems. However, the amount of time spent by children viewing television, and the amount of time spent by children viewing offensive content is of great concern to parents.
Recent advances in microprocessor controlled televisions has made available more censorship control of television content to parents. However, current technology still falls short of the public's desire. Currently, censorship based on content ratings, supplied by broadcasters, is available if a household is equipped with the proper equipment. New semiconductor devices contained within televisions have been specifically developed for censoring television programs based on broadcaster's supplied received ratings.
Presently, a broadcaster's rating, in conjunction with enhancements in television control, allows a parent or guardian to set a threshold censorship level. In such a system, a broadcast program is displayed if the broadcaster's rating is less than a threshold level set by the parent. For example, a guardian can set a television to censor any program above and including the PG level. If the broadcaster classifies a program as R, it will not be displayed on the television because the threshold classification set by the guardian has been exceeded.
Currently, the most familiar standardized rating system provides audience ratings from G to R. Many problems exist with all current rating systems. Parents must decide what constitutes objectionable material regardless of the network ratings. For example, professional wrestling is unrated, however some parents consider professional wrestling a violent activity.
In an attempt to overcome obvious deficiencies, proposed rating systems have added additional categories within each audience rating. For example, new categories include violence, sexual content, language, nudity and adult subject matter. Every new category has intensity levels defined by a number. For example, violence has five intensity levels. For example, a level one violence rating is comic violence such as found in cartoons. Level five under the violence category is graphic violence, such as decapitation and torture. Greater resolution of content ratings is part of an intense effort to satisfy the public's demand for censorship. However, additional rating systems and censorship devices still have not provided acceptable control to the majority of concerned parents.
A significant drawback to all present and proposed rating systems is that the organization which produces the programs has influence on the actual rating. Additionally, the implementation of the system is dependent on the broadcasting networks and cable companies to insert the ratings into the broadcast signal. Thus, it is the marketing organization of the programs that assigns and controls the ratings. This infrastructure suggests a conflict of interest.
In all known prior art, an effective utilization of broadcast ratings requires the participation of broadcasters. If broadcasters refuse to provide a program classification signal, rating solutions are ineffective. More importantly, even if broadcasters cooperate, establishing uniform and homogeneous standards to satisfy people with diverse values are futile. Certain subject matter may be acceptable to one person but quite unacceptable to another. Currently, parents are limited to a rigid rating system which was created by a committee of bureaucrats.
It is also believed by many experts that television can have negative effects on individuals during adolescence. It is also understood that television can have considerable educational value for children. Many broadcasters offer channels which are purely educational and hence do not require a rating system. Educational broadcasts provide an effective and efficient learning source for children.
Often, a television program will contain morally offensive content amid highly educational subject matter. A rigid rating system can not accurately predict a parent's reaction to the foregoing situation. A big drawback to all prior art censorship systems is whether or not the public in general or a specific viewer agrees with a broadcaster's rating of a particular program. Rating the content of a program is very subjective. Considerable rating disparity can exist between networks. Adding more levels to existing rating systems has not addressed the public's long felt need for a practicable system. Many programs deal obliquely with adult material. In this instance, often a parent is not offended if a child watches such a program. Rating oblique subject matter is debatable and consequently, many parents forego censorship of this type of material. For example, comedies containing innuendo pertaining to sex or other potentially offensive subject matter is rarely comprehended by children. Again, television programs do not fit into neat, clear-cut rating categories.
All prior art censor systems are subjective and unavoidably rigid. Additionally, for a censorship system to perform adequately, a parent or guardian has to spend an inordinate amount of time deciding where every program fits into an imperfectly defined category of acceptability. For example, a PG rated movie can be mild with respect to violence yet contain profanity. A PG rated movie may be non-violent with mild language, although satanical. An issue which is unaddressed in the prior art is, how does a parent measure and regulate profanity or atheist views. Often, the offensive nature of a program can only be attained after observing the program in its totality. Generally, a parent's judgement evolves as he or she views more than one scene. By the time offensive subject matter is observed, it is too late for a parent to censor the offensive material. In summary, a PG rating does not adequately inform a guardian of what will be displayed during a program.
Currently, adequate parental control of a child's television viewing habits are difficult, time consuming and unworkable. Current television ratings systems are vague. The broadcast industry has added new classifications such as TV-14, and TV-M. However, additional ratings do not address parental needs. Often, not enough information about the definition of the new classifications is explained to parents. Further, broadcasters do not have sufficient incentive to help identify objectional material. Due to the lack of incentive, broadcasters have been reluctant to implement an improved rating system.
A variety of proposals have heretofore been made to address the selective viewing needs of the American family. Most of the proposals have either been limited in their focus or they have lacked practicability. Thus, for example, a system for obtaining and viewing a listing of programs scheduled for presentation has been described in U.S. Pat. No. 4,571,578 which was granted to Reiter et al. on Jun. 14, 1988. In addition to down-loading and displaying a listing of programs, it proposed generalized access control. Reiter et al. discloses memory which could be utilized to permit the owner of the invention to control access to the television, or access to particular television channels. In order to control viewer access, the memory could instruct the viewer to input a password for all future utilization of the system and/or television. Although suggesting a form of general access control, there appears to be no teaching or the utilization of content censorship; and the thrust of the Reiter et al. reference is to aid in searching for user desirable programs rather than censoring undesirable ones.
Another approach to providing censorship has been to implement a converter with a feature known as "Parental Control." Some "Parental Control" systems employ a key or code to block one or more selected channels from viewing. An example of one such system is that of U.S. Pat. No. 4,718,107 granted to Hayes. According to the Hayes system, when one or more channels are blocked, all of the programs on a blocked channel are made inaccessible to a viewer. A problem with this approach is that some good or otherwise acceptable programs are blocked along with the unacceptable programs. Thus, a guardian or parent always wishing to exclude a violent or sexy police program from the view of his young children may also be blocking access to his or her favorite baseball program which is subsequently broadcast. Under channel blocking proposals, everything on a channel is either blocked or everything on a channel is available for viewing.
The shortcomings of the channel blocking approach have been recognized by others and there have been attempts to devise ways to block individual programs without disabling an entire channel. Some of these approaches attach a "Material Content Signal" to programs. Examples of this approach are those of U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,888,796 and 5,172,111 to Olivo, Jr. According to such proposals a receiving device, upon recognizing the "Material Content Signal," blocks the television program unless a secret code or password has been entered into the receiver through a key pad.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,033,085 to Rew and U.S. Pat. No. 5,270,822 to Choi, have devised similar methods but have differed in the design of their receiving devices. The disclosures rely on an electronic signal accompanying the broadcast program, such signal being recognized by the receiver which automatically deactivates the television or refuses access to the television channel while the electronic signal is present.
While overcoming the all or nothing problem mentioned above, such approaches also have their own shortcomings. First, such solutions are limited because there is but one censor threshold per television set. For example, in a family with a parent, a very young child, a teenage child and grandparent, all members of the household must adhere to one of two choices: either a censored level geared for one member of the household or access to all programs. Additionally, these inventions depend on a broadcaster's subjective and rigid rating system.
An improved program blocking or censorship approach is described in U.S. Pat. No. 4,930,160 to Vogel. According to the Vogel proposals, program classification signals are encoded in a video or audio portion of the received programs. The user input provisions, while an improvement over other proposals, as described above, also suffers from its limitations. The censorship standards utilized under this proposal come from a central censorship authority. This approach also requires the participation of the broadcasters and parental acceptance of the broadcasters standards to be acceptable.
Although parents desire to control program content, many parents want to control the amount of time children spend watching the television. Thus, it has been observed that excessive viewing time, especially for children, may displace more worthy activities such as school study or physical fitness activity. Here, also, there have been proposals for control. In U.S. Pat. No. 4,566,033 Reidenouer, there is proposed a system in which a token is employed to activate a television set for a predetermined period of time. However, such proposals do not distinguish between different users nor do they provide for user identification. In this "token-operated" system, operation inhibiting power to the television set is the control mechanism. Thus, reprogramming of any pre-programmed features is a considerable drawback in this invention.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,348,696 to Beier discloses the utilization of a microprocessor and stored passwords to distinguish between multiple viewers. In addition, it provides for inhibited viewing during selected periods of time during each day. However, it is very complex and suffers from the disadvantage of controlling power application to the television set. It also does not provide for an override capability.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,060,079 to Rufus-Isaacs discloses an arrangement which utilizes a transportable magnetic medium to activate the television and also provides a readout for viewers so they will know how much time a program has remaining. However, transportable mediums can be exchanged, borrowed or, more likely, lost or misplaced by children. If exchanged, borrowed or altered, children can have access to prohibited programs. On the other hand, if lost, there is no access until another or replacement magnetic medium is provided.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,168,372 to Sweetser describes a time control system which incorporates a viewing allowance that, if exceeded, interrupts the radio frequency input signal. Viewing times can be set on a daily or weekly basis. In addition, the Sweetser system includes block out times for each of a plurality of designees (e.g. children) during any day of the week. An override feature is included which allows a parent to watch television regardless of existing censorship. The system is also capable of channel blocking. Thus, Sweetser does not control what is seen but only how long it is seen, and the limited channel blocking ability contains the same limitations described above. However, as with others of the foregoing proposals, such proposals are single dimensional in that they do not allow a selection from diverse sources to structure the censorship.
Prior art push button based proposals for entering passwords (personal identification numbers, generally known as PIN codes) have certain disadvantages. By the time children reach school age, they are able to count to ten and read numbers. They also have enough dexterity to operate video games. By limiting passwords to a sequence of four colored buttons, the possibility of password theft becomes substantial. An older child can either watch a sibling enter his/her password or, through simple experimentation, can ascertain another's password.
An additional disadvantage of the Sweetser proposal is that its programming is cumbersome. Programming prompts are in symbols rather than in written words. To program the unit, one must constantly refer to the accompanying literature, and time allowances can be set either daily or weekly but not in combination. Finally, because the unit is not down line activated, it is not suitably designed to be offered as a cable company service. All of the above mentioned prior art still have the problem of viewer diversity and differing moral values as applied to censorship. Television programs that seem harmless to one person are considered totally unacceptable and morally wrong by other. Again, existing censorship methods are too time intensive, complex, and expensive and hence impracticable to be acceptable for most parents.
As suggested above, none of the foregoing proposals include a comprehensive multi-dimensional solution to television control with minimal parental input. All of the proposals are rigid and attempt to address one small problem without addressing an overall solution. The prior art fails to teach of a comprehensive approach and much of the prior art is time intensive to set-up and operate. Therefore, the present systems are less than acceptable.
Additionally, some prior art solutions, while being technically feasible, are not effective because they depended on the participation of the broadcaster and a network controlled subjective rating system. Allowing the participation of broadcasters' censorship is precarious because we are requiring the broadcasters to censor their own creation. Accordingly, in spite of a variety of solutions proposed and patented over many years, effective solutions have yet to be made in the empowering the American family with effective control over their television viewing.